I wonder if
Rimonabant, aka Acomplia, will be a false positive?
1 posted on
07/02/2006 4:39:41 PM PDT by
neverdem
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-24 last
To: neverdem
"The three dissenters noted that such a conclusion is contrary to the law's intent (to protect the public from impaired drivers)"
Does getting wired up on coffee(caffeine)and donuts(sugar)count as impaired?
Just checking.
99 posted on
07/08/2006 10:06:04 PM PDT by
siznartuf
(If I Hear "Jobs Americans Won't Do" One More ^%&^%^%# Time)
To: neverdem
In the workplace if the person is operating heavy machinery or driving a dump truck and injures himself or someone else and a blood test shows drugs, the injured person can sue the living daylights out of the company he works for, and the insurance company can deny the claim, leaving the company with its butt hanging out.
129 posted on
07/09/2006 10:40:42 AM PDT by
N. Theknow
((Kennedys - Can't drive, can't fly, can't ski, can't skipper a boat - But they know what's best.))
To: neverdem
I don't know how it is everywhere else, but here in Kalifornia there are TWO separate charges which can be brought against a suspected drunk driver. If you fail an alcohol test of some sort (blood, urine, or breath) then you will be charged with "drunk driving". Here the limit is 0.08%. If you test below that but not zero, or you admit to having had a drink within ANY amount of time, you can be charged with "driving under the influence" (DUI) which is a different offense from drunk driving (DWI). In this context, the marijuana laws don't seem that far out of whack.
To: neverdem
Impaired Reasoning - Should last weeks joint disqualify a pot smoker from driving today?
No. Only an uninformed fool would advocate arresting non-impaired drivers. Or a statist government enabler.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-24 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson